to munition factories in time of War may be continued to industrial
factories in time of Peace. The net result of the various causes
above-mentioned was that the expense of the Indian army rose by leaps
and bounds, until, before the War, India was expending, £21,000,000 as
against the £28,000,000 expended by the United Kingdom, while the
wealthy Dominions of Canada and Australia were spending only 1-1/2 and
1-1/4 millions respectively. (I am not forgetting that the United
Kingdom was expending over £51,000,000 on her Navy, while India was free
of that burden, save for a contribution of half a million.)

Since 1885, the Congress has constantly protested against the
ever-increasing military expenditure, but the voice of the Congress was
supposed to be the voice of sedition and of class ambition, instead of
being, as it was the voice of educated Indians, the most truly patriotic
and loyal class of the population. In 1885, in the First Congress, Mr.
P. Rangiah Naidu pointed out that military expenditure had been
£1,463,000 in 1857 and had risen to £16,975,750 in 1884. Mr. D.E. Wacha
ascribed the growth to the amalgamation scheme of 1859, and remarked
that the Company in 1856 had an army of 254,000 men at a cost of 11-1/2
millions, while in 1884 the Crown had an army of only 181,000 men at a
cost of 17 millions. The rise was largely due to the increased cost of
the European regiments, overland transport service, stores, pensions,
furlough allowances, and the like, most of them imposed despite the
resistance of the Government of India, which complained that the changes
were "made entirely, it may be said, from Imperial considerations, in
which Indian interests have not been consulted or advanced." India paid
nearly, £700,000 a year, for instance, for "Home Depôts"--Home being
England of course--in which lived some 20,000 to 22,000 British
soldiers, on the plea that their regiments, not they, were serving in
India. I cannot follow out the many increases cited by Mr. Wacha, but